Purdue Pharma case more than an $8B fine
By 
Jaclyn Jaeger2020-10-23T20:45:00
Compliance officers in the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries should look beyond the $8 billion fine Purdue Pharma received from the DOJ and at the bigger enforcement trend highlighting the need for better oversight in the field.
Related articles
-
ArticleFalse Claims Act-related settlements top $5.6B in 2021
False Claims Act settlements totaled more than $5.6 billion in the past federal fiscal year, the second-largest amount ever collected by the government in FCA actions in one year, according to the Department of Justice.
-
ArticleCompliance ramifications of proposed $26B opioid deal for pharma industry
Three major drug distributors and drugmaker Johnson & Johnson reached a proposed $26 billion multistate agreement for their alleged roles in fueling the nationwide opioid epidemic. The settlement imparts compliance lessons on the pharmaceutical industry at large.
-
ArticleMcKinsey to pay $573M for role in opioid epidemic
McKinsey & Company reached a $573 million settlement with 49 state attorneys general and the District of Columbia related to consulting services it provided to pharmaceutical companies that directly contributed to the opioid epidemic.
More from Regulatory Enforcement
-
PremiumDiscover, in allowing misclassification problem to fester, pushed compliance aside
Federal banking regulators have laid the blame for Discover Financial Services charging merchants $1 billion in excessive credit card fees over 17 years squarely at the feet of company executives.
-
News BriefCFPB drops $95M enforcement action against Navy Federal, without explanation
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has dropped a $95 million enforcement action against Navy Federal Credit Union, the latest regulatory pullback by the agency under President Donald Trump.
-
ArticleFCA drops ‘naming and shaming’ approach – except in ‘exceptional circumstances’
The UK’s financial regulator has had a rough ride over the past couple of years as its strategy to “name and shame” firms it opened investigations into was widely slammed by the industry and lawmakers over concerns that companies could be unfairly maligned.